Blade Runner
User Score
8.6 out of 10

Universal acclaim- based on 245 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 223 out of 245
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 245
  3. Negative: 12 out of 245

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Rechiau
    Aug 12, 2011
    10
    When I first watched this movie, I didn't really pay attention. Which isn't the films fault, given it is a film based highly on the narrative, themes and relationships within the film. Which is respectively hard to follow for an incredibly tired and not so-sober individual. It wasn't until a year or so later, I saw the film was on tv and decided to watch it again. Given I hardly remembered what even happened in it. Let's just say after paying attention to the detail in this film, I was blown-back by it's style and atmosphere. Scott did very well in creating a realistic and believable gritty future; while also being able to capture how such a world alienates and disillusions it's residents. It's a beautiful social commentary and deals with many philosophical ideas, while never telling you any definite answers to them. It's definitely one of the best narrative uses of a sci-fi setting, and deserves all of its recognition and praise.… Expand
  2. grandpajoe6191
    Dec 26, 2011
    7
    You see, I'm not a cult follower of Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner", so I have no **** clue of what you zealots see out there. However, what I see is a movie filled with rich, wonderful visuals accompanied by a very, very weak story (but the ending was good).
  3. UnknownJ
    Feb 2, 2008
    4
    some very special effects for a very old film. I watched this movie because I heard this movie is suppose to be a triumph, some people even worship this movie. But to me I thought it was a load of boredom and dullness. I didn't like this not because it was old but it just wasn't my kind of movie and understand the plot and the message and it just seems really dumb to me...there wasnt anything I enjoyed really in this movie. I can respect that a lot of people like this movie, I however just did not like it.… Expand
  4. zombiehampster
    Nov 5, 2010
    10
    This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and I think it will continue to be for as long as I'm around. The world that Scott created in this film reeks of depth, style, and an ambiance that many films can only struggle to grasp, which to me is very impressive considering that this was done before the special effects revolution of the 90's and 2000's. The story revolves around a retired blade-runner; a cop that specializes in hunting rogue replicants (synthetic humans), named Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is brought out of retirement to hunt down a group of replicants who have arrived on Earth. The movie does an excellent job of casting the characters of the movie in many shades of grey, with no one character being truly good or evil, and also poses some interesting questions as to the nature of humanity and what defines us. The films visuals are inspired; the term "film noir" is very fitting for it, but may seem slower paced to those used to more modern "action" films with their rapid fire cuts. Where many films seem to have action just for the sake of it (cough, Michael cough Bay, cough), Scott's action scenes have more of a purpose to further the narrative. It takes some getting used to, but the slower pace fits the concept better, and only adds more to the feeling of loss, stagnation, and oppression of living in that future society. The music is very ambient, with a synth sound to it, and although I don't usually like that kind of thing, it does compliment the film well and adds to the overall mood. Ford, Olmos (who only has a small role, but somehow makes the most of it), Hauer, Young, and Hannah all give strong performances, and although most of them play their roles somewhat subdued (which fits the future world they live in well), it's ironic (and most likely on purpose) that the most passionate and human-like of all the characters are the replicants themselves. It's an interesting notion that the humans are portrayed as much more cynical and full of despondency, while the shorter life-spanned replicants seem to embody a passion for life that they seem to have lost. This movie is deep, but not for everyone. People who have short attention spans or no interest in entertaining ideas about humanity and our future should probably stay away. Those who love a story about a man struggling to find his humanity in the desolate landscape of the future, cool visuals, or just sci-fi in general owe it to themselves to see the movie that influenced countless movies, TV series, books, music, and video games, and will continue to do so for a long time.… Expand
  5. MatthewH.
    Nov 7, 2009
    0
    Worst Sci Fi movie I have ever watched. I don't understand the hype behind this movie. It's slow. Uninspired. And tries to be something that it's not. As in good.
  6. MikeN.
    Mar 26, 2004
    6
    Very stylish, but not very interesting. The acting is so understated that nothing lingers at all. Olmos, who hardly says a word, manages to be more interesting than everybody else in the film.
  7. Santa
    Feb 3, 2010
    10
    What interested me most, whether this Christian Science Monitor David Sterritt feel embarrassed after his review of (master-piece) Blade Runner ?!
  8. DrewK
    May 1, 2010
    10
    Best movie ever. Matthew H is either borderline retarded or too stupid to know any different.
  9. J.Dodd
    Jan 9, 2004
    10
    "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes". The best scifi of all time.
  10. steveb.
    Jun 27, 2005
    10
    Go with the directors cut. it blows the original cut away.
  11. BubbaJack
    Oct 12, 2005
    0
    Thumbs down to the Director's Cut. Adding the dream sequence is just as bad as Lucas adding Greedo's arm or Luke's scream. And deleting the voicerover, it diminshes this film to the point I cannot recommend it to anyone...ever.
  12. DanyT.
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    I gave 10 because of the original movie that I've seen over 25 times, the director's cut is removing all the mood of the original and slowed down the pace. With the voice over it was so mutch better.
  13. SusanL.
    Mar 1, 2008
    10
    God is in the details. Every time I see this movie, there is a small visual detail which highlights the blurred line between natural and manufactured humans. Although I like the original better than the Director's Cut, it is still Blade Runner.
  14. Alicia
    Sep 3, 2007
    1
    Dull. Stale. Uninvolving mess...hopefully this film will be overshadowed, its nothing but a torn, unemotional film with no potential whatsoever.
  15. JefferyB.
    Jul 31, 2005
    0
    The Director's Cut is awful. Give me back my dumded-down voice-over! I'm being sarcastic, but that's what fan's of the Director's Cut call the voice over...duming down the movie.. For me, it adds character to the film. It's like a first-person novel..Reminds me of a movie based off a Raymond Chandler story. I like the so-called "cheesy" happy ending. The unicorn dream? Talk about dumbing down....now that sure is a big hint that Deckard's a replicant. I have the international cut on VHS. I'm still waiting for that to come DVD. Heck, the Director's cut didn't even add any new scenes except the dream sequence. This DVD release of one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time is a disgrace.… Expand
  16. djalex
    Jul 24, 2011
    0
    this film has great lighting in it. great set design if it was just for looking at a set. its the first attempt to mix film noir with sci fi creating the space noir genre. thats it. THIS IS THE MOST OVER RATED FILM IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. In fact, this film is a perfect failure on almost every level. The basic problem: it undermines its own premise. no animals but they have fur coats and leather and tasty joints to eat noodles out of ,,,yum! the world was destroyed so most people live off world except the opening shot looks like detroit in its hey-day not to mention the streets are packed and there are construction lights everywhere (there must have been an infrustructure stimulus packaged passed). the dialogue is horrendous "we scarred each other pretty good didn't we [giggle giggle]? we sure did!" . the genius scientist (jr) is also a naive idiot. the main character is not interested in anything that is going on and has no impetus to be involved in the movie at all. the opening scene where the rival bounty hunter is killed should be gripping and its just a guy getting shot. this film took me 8 times to watch before i completed it without falling asleep. then i saw the directors cut and it was even worse. how this makes anyones top ten sci fi films list is beyond me other than the fact that the lighting and cinematography are amazing. its a series of still photos and should be presented as such.… Expand
  17. thegameplayaz
    Dec 3, 2010
    3
    After hearing so much about this film I decided to watch it, despite it being before my time. I am often surprised at how great some older films are, even ones made way before I was born but sadly this wasn't one of them. The good points about this film are; the visual effects are amazing and the atmosphere of this futuristic sky-scape is just incredible. The movie itself, however, lacks a solid story, plot, meaning and 'soul'. Its as if the film creators thought "wow this is such an incredible landscape we've created, now lets quickly write a story!" This is sad from a film that had the potential to be one of the greatest sci-fi films ever. The plot is just meaningless, the main character was meaningless and the cyborgs were all just meaningless.… Expand
  18. DanC.
    May 3, 2004
    10
    One of the greatest sci/fi films of all time!
  19. PatC.
    Jan 7, 2005
    10
    A totally engaging movie. There is no better example of the sustained atmosphere and expressed nuances necessary to make a science fiction movie convincing. Also is a commentary on existence in general, as the greatest films of any genre are. I must point out that the ending in the original version, an introspective set against the remembrance-invoking sudden light and color of snow-dusted Glacier National Park scenery, was one for the ages. Evidently Ridley Scott felt he had to implement the literary maxim equivalent that one must be willing to sacrifice one's greatest line for the sake of the poem. I would have left it in. Excessive re-examination clouds the poet's original instincts.… Expand
  20. BryanH.
    Feb 4, 2007
    10
    Literary, ambient and memorable in the best way. When a film places humanity over human, it supersedes all other competing messages. The atmosphere and passion of this film makes it possibly the best film ever made; certainly the best sci-fi.
  21. JamesR.
    Mar 21, 2007
    6
    The director's cut drastically changes the mood of the film and, in my opinion, not for the better. Most of the Film Noir style of the original has been torn away, resulting in a vague mess that moves at the pace of snail.
  22. StephenC.
    Mar 28, 2007
    10
    The fact that major critics are now backpedaling over their initial response to the film show how much their rating really matter. This is a phenomenal movie and most people who know anything about film editing could tel you that it is well composed. This is one of the few films adapted from Philip K. Dick that actually still holds the spirit of the original work. Another good adaptation is "A Scanner Darkly."… Expand
  23. RD.
    Sep 28, 2007
    10
    Awesome movie. Great visuals. Brilliant performances and direction by Scott. Rutger Hauer is awesome and so is Harrison Ford and Sean Young who looks very pretty. I don't know why did it flop. It is such a class act.
  24. MarkW.
    Aug 26, 2008
    10
    This movie, much like 2001: A space odyssey, is more an experience or art and philosophy than a great way to be entertained for two hours. When I first watched Bladerunner, and 2001 for that matter, as a teenager, I found it to be mostly boring - lacking as it does, compared to most modern Hollywood Blockbusters, in pacing, action and explosions. When I watched it again in University however, I was truly blown away by it. I've probably watched it over twenty times down the years, and yes it's true, subsequent viewings reveal hidden gems unlike any other movie I've seen. The latest edition on Blue ray is something else. Still current, still relevant, still a work of art. A journey, more than a movie. There, I said it.… Expand
  25. [Anonymous]
    Nov 18, 2005
    7
    Director's cut is improvement. Instead of dragging on, it allows the movie to envelop you by itself, and focuses more on the main points. I see why critics may call it a classic, but it's too slow and strange for my taste. I prefer the films it influenced (Ghost in the Shell, etc) to the actual masterpiece.
  26. Mike
    Feb 14, 2005
    10
    This is one of the best sci fi movies! The atmosphere of this movie is unforgetable, more then 20 years have gone by and hollywood sitll hasnt made anything close to this movie.
  27. JohnSmith
    Sep 26, 2006
    0
    The whole idea of cyborgs is just ridiculous. There is to much detail in the storyline, making it difficult to follow. How this movie is rated a top sci fi film I still cannot understand. Someone needs to be shot after that one.
  28. HelenM.
    Jan 1, 2007
    10
    I saw this movie when it first came out. Few people were in the theatre. I was mesmerized and stunned by what I was seeing. I am seeing it for the 8th time tonight and I am still stunned by the beauty, the existentialism, the acting. It is truly haunting and as relevant today as it was years ago.
  29. MarkD.
    Jan 29, 2008
    10
    My favourite movie, bar none (well, maybe the new cut?).
  30. AlexR.n
    Nov 3, 2009
    10
    Like oyher user reviews here, I didn't think too much of Blade Runner when I first saw it. But as I got older, the film just got better and better until I saw the Bluray version in 2007 and it just hit me like a dull thud; Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. Every time I watch it I catch something else that I didn't notice before. It's so beautiful and profound and... I could go on, but I wont. Best movie EVER.… Expand
  31. AdamE.
    Nov 16, 2002
    10
    Without a doubt the best sci-fi film ever made. Ridley Scott's film keeps the Philip K. Dick atmosphere alive. Everything about this movie is excellent.The actors, the music, the story and the special effects are brilliant!
  32. AlG.
    Aug 27, 2002
    10
    A masterpiece! Ridley Scott's best movie to date (2002).
  33. SimonD.
    Jun 26, 2003
    6
    I have never managed to sit through this on one showing. It has great FX, a good deal of vision, and Harrison Ford, but it doesn't hold together. It also falls short comapred to the much richer novel, and Scott's "revelation" years later that Deckard was a replicant harms the film in some strange way.
  34. WakeUp,TimeToMulroneycakes
    Jul 22, 2003
    10
    Funny thing: the mighty Phil Dick, having managed to see this film (albeit the earlier, more rubbish version) thought it was a great visualisation of his book. It's not. It's nothing like it. Only the rainy-post-nuclear-earth setting and the names - most of the names, that is -are the same both ways. The only scene that is anywhere similar is the bit where Deckard VKs Rachael Tyrell (Rosen in the book - changed so's not to seem Anti-Semitic, like it matters). Even the title's different. There is nothing, not a one thing in the plot of Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? that is carried over to Blade Runner except for the Voigt-Kampff test and the name Roy Baty (and even that got an extra "T"). The book doesn't even have "Reps", it has "Andys" for crying out loud (for android, d'you see?). The great thing is: it really doesn't matter. Blade Runner is one of the best science-fiction films ever made by the hand of man, ever: Ridley Scott directs with the hand of a man who has just been given the world's second largest train set; Harrison Ford is wonderfully weatherbeaten as Deckard - and what happened to Rutger Hauer? He's so completely great in this film that the rest of his career seems abomination. It is a shame that they lost a lot of the baggage from Electric Sheep - Deckard's wife, for example, is a great character, and much missed; the mood-adjustment thingamebob is a great idea, one well worth putting in some other Dick adaptation; and of course the whole Messianic theme that Phil returned to so much is missing too. It's the whole point of the novel - it's got nothing to do with the film. But never mind. Take the movie and the novel as seperate entities, independent from each other. Just as the only people who don't think The Shining is one of the most frightening films ever made are the people who read the book first - it's just that different - so anyone going into Blade Runner with dreams of Electric Sheep in their head will be disappointed. So don't.… Expand
  35. YoonC.
    Sep 14, 2003
    10
    A film possessed of mythic grandeur, hardboiled noirish stylishness, and visionary sci-fi imagination. The film asks what is and isn't life, what is and isn't true emotions, and ultimately does it matter? The enraged, agonized search for longevity by Rutger Hauer is darkly heroic, and the love scenes between Ford and Young are some of the most subtle, ethereal, and lunar ever put on screen. … Expand
  36. RyanA.
    Sep 19, 2003
    10
    If you fail the Turing Test you can kiss your a-- goodbye.
  37. NormandJ.
    Sep 23, 2003
    10
    One of the best !
  38. DragoM.
    Jan 17, 2004
    10
    Absolutely fantastic and truly humane!
  39. DaveC.
    Oct 28, 2004
    9
    A triumph of hypnotic visuals and special effects. The future dystopia depicted in Blade Runner seems all the more relevent today as Western culture invariably continues to rot thanks to the greed and corruption of capitalism. Blade Runner is first rate sci-fi and it's so unfortunate that they couldn't have gotten a better male lead than the dull Harrison ford. I understand that the humans in this film are in many ways supposed to appear more robotic than the replicants, but come on, Keanu Reeves resonated more charm in the Matrix.… Expand
  40. JohnC.
    Mar 19, 2004
    10
    This is one of the greatest movies of all time rendered highly silly by the director's cut. For the love of all that's sacred to pop culture, bring the theatrical release to DVD.
  41. FlorianB.
    Jul 12, 2004
    10
    This is definitely one of the best Movies of Alltime. Not only under the aspect of SciFi! The only movie I can watch over and over again.
  42. AkhilK.
    Jan 28, 2005
    10
    Absolutely beautiful. What vision! Truly made my heart ache(and pump!). The direction was incredibly and Harrison Ford at his best!
  43. RomanR
    Aug 13, 2005
    10
    One of the best Sci-fi out there.
  44. TomDoe
    Oct 12, 2006
    10
    Not a spelled out movie, with many philosophical and classical literary references and ideas, this film usually leaves viewers polarized. It take more than one viewing to really understand everything and requires the viewer to actually think! Not to say movies can't be wonderful low-brow escapism, but this is not one of those movies.
  45. JB
    Aug 11, 2006
    9
    A cleverly dark film that exposes one to visual and cerebral delights.
  46. DanB.
    Nov 13, 2007
    9
    It's been a while since I saw the original. I was anxious about any new version, but was totally gripped by this one. I never minded the narration in the original (never thought it was bad), but I did not miss it, here. This was my first time seeing it on a big screen and it is still visually inspired, and has aged well.
  47. ColR.
    Dec 14, 2007
    10
    The most incredible movie ever. The story is morally deep and doesn't just rely on the action schmooze that we would have expected if this had been taken by a lesser director. Everything in this movie hangs together perfectly - the visualisation of the dark future, the dilution and confusion of cultures into an unrecognisable mess, the bleakness of the fractured progression of different elements of society, the music, the lighting, the acting, everything. There are few movies that can honestly be called "works of art" - indeed, even Scott has never managed anything to the standard of this movie - but rest assured, this film noir masterpiece is one of the most inspiring, beautiful pieces of entertainment that has ever been produced. Staggeringly good. Everything else is a faximilie of this masterwork. The very fact that, in 2007, this film still looks as fresh as it did in 1984 is enough to show how well it was produced. Timeless and utterly stunning.… Expand
  48. ChrisB
    Dec 13, 2006
    10
    Blade Runner is one of the best movies I've seen, and possibly my favorite science fiction movie of all time. The pacing and complexity can be somewhat confusing for first-timers, but once you look past the visual effects (that still look good, almost 25 years after its original theatrical release) the depth of the story and thematic elements really comes out. This movie has stood and will continue to stand the test of time; Ridley's epic.… Expand
  49. TiriodB.
    Nov 22, 2007
    10
    This is a classic of the Sci-Fi films, a must seen, the best of its kind without doubt.
  50. DeVr33z
    Oct 15, 2011
    9
    One of my favorite movies of all time. There are some moments of corny acting, and a few things happen in the movie that I still don't understand, but overall if you're a fan of sci-fi or noire you will love Blade Runner.
  51. MovieFail
    Aug 17, 2010
    9
    It goes far, but it doesn't go far enough. The world of the machine is not explored as deeply as I would have liked, in order to truly cement this as a classic film. Nevertheless, it stands on its own as a defining sci-fi noir film that really everyone should see who has an interest in the genre. Harrison Ford plays essentially Harrison Ford, but as a detective, and he does a very decent job satisfying the old, disgruntled lawman that he's supposed to play. Brion James plays a delightfully crazy android, aided by a brief but memorable performance by Daryl Hannah. The story weaves together expertly in this crime drama, but the characters really drive the plot along. This is important, because at about two hours in length, this film can seem slow to anyone who is more used to fast-paced modern science fiction. However, tension builds and the climax is worth it for those who are willing to give it a shot. All in all, its accolades are well-deserved, even if it doesn't make my personal favorite science fiction films list. This may be Ridley Scott's defining masterpiece in his ouevre.

    Verdict: Movie Win    … Expand
  52. ERG1008
    Aug 23, 2010
    9
    2019, illegal androids on the loose, man out to stop them, falls in love with one of them.
    Classic Sci-Fi which still stands up well nearly 30 years on. Visually superb & still one of the greatest opening shots to a film also helped by the great score from Vangells.
    Decent cast & I still really like Edward James Olmos as the slightly unnerving Gaff.
    I've now watched the original, the Direc    tor's Cut & the Final Cut & I still prefer the original version overall. I just think it comes together a lot better.… Expand
  53. Andys_Reviews
    Aug 27, 2012
    10
    A very introspective film with all the action focused on Deckard and the Replicants without the audience really seeing much outside this group. Yes there are hints; the advertising for the off-world colonies, but apart from that it
  54. Acolon
    Jul 2, 2012
    10
    Bes sci fi ever. A must see to everyone who likes the genre. The lighting is great, the look and fell is beyond belief. It is cinema at its finest. Character creation is beautiful and the well paced action blends perfectly with the psychological aspects of the plot.
  55. Tokyochuchu
    Mar 4, 2013
    10
    Blade Runner is one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. Ridley Scott is an undisputed master of the visual craft and Blade Runner is his masterwork. Other elements of the movie work just as well; the atmosphere, special effects and music are all absolutely perfect. There are also so many metaphors and subtexts buried in the movie that it's possible to discover something new every time you watch. Blade Runner is an unbelievably fantastic film that is rightfully hailed as an all time classic.… Expand
  56. ovi_bz
    Jan 8, 2011
    5
    I think this is the only Harrison Ford movie which i don't like. I mean.... seriously what is special in this movie?
  57. DRUNK-N-DENNYS
    Jun 1, 2012
    3
    Excruciatingly boring. Less dialogue than Castaway. Slower than 2001. Less plot than Coffee and Cigarettes. Uninspiring acting. The only reason this film has a non-zero score is the effects, but that's not a good enough reason to watch this one.
  58. Khunter4382
    Aug 25, 2011
    9
    Way ahead of it's time! This film is one of the hardest pills to swallow, but once you get it down, it sticks with you. It evokes such depth of thought and meditation. Rutger Hauer is excellent in this role though he doesn't have much screen time. Ford is great as ever with a particularly nuanced performance. The effects are stunning to this day. Watch this film and then watch it again a week or two later......let it "digest". Like a fine wine, it ages gracefully!… Expand
  59. Halfwelshman
    Aug 12, 2012
    9
    It's the big ideas behind its iconic visuals that really makes Blade Runner such a great science-fiction film. Covering wide-ranging themes including what it means to be human, free will, future off-world colonisation, the meaning of dreams and the nature of reality, it's certainly a cerebral viewing experience. Ridley Scott is a master of genre-crossing - Alien was a hybrid of science-fiction and several sub-genres of horror, and Blade Runner is a science-fiction-noir. You've got the iconography and narrative structure of dark detective fiction encased in a radical, industrialised future city that appears as a strangely organic fusion of Eastern and Western culture. Though he reportedly had a bad time shooting the film, Harrison Ford gives one of the standout performances of his career as Rick Deckard, a weary hard-boiled detective who looks as though he's stepped straight out of a pulp detective novel. Daryl Hannah's impish and sinister take on a female fugitive android impresses as well, as does Edward James Olmos's mysterious mostly-silent detective Gaff - he doesn't say much, but his actions speak louder than words ever could. However, it's Rutger Hauer who really steals the show as Roy, the unhinged leader of the renegade "replicants" who Deckard is hunting, his performance a pitch-perfect deliverance of creepy-cool, and he gives one of the best farewell monologues on film (Haur responsible for choosing the most affecting parts of a speech written by David Webb Peoples) where Roy professes his humanity in moving, poetic verse as rain cascades down his grieving face. Vangellis' eerie, layered electronic score also helps no end to add further richness and emotion to the film. I'm not quite sure why there's still a debate about the implications of the film's final scene - it's pretty obvious what Scott intended. Blade Runner is undeniably one of the most influential of science-fiction films, and is an interesting modern take on a film noir to boot. I can't really say that I think Blade Runner is better that Scott's previous foray into sci-fi - yes there's another shadowy, amoral super-corporation pulling strings behind the scenes, but beyond that, Alien is just too different to compare. I sincerely hope Scott stops plundering his back-catalogue of successes at some point and moves onto something new, what with Prometheus being such a mixed bag of a film. There's a Prometheus sequel and another film in the Blade Runner universe in the works, which is more than a little worrying, and makes me wonder whether we should forcibly remove Ridley Scott's science-fiction crown before he really embarrasses himself.… Expand
  60. davenbettridge
    Feb 19, 2012
    8
    Blade Runner is a difficult movie to review as its a landmark science fiction masterpiece that has gone on to influence much of science fiction in movies and video games but on the other hand I find it boring as hell. Studying this movie for culture purposes is fascinating, watching for entertainment value is another thing.
  61. j30
    Jan 30, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The cerebral Blade Runner is Ridley Scott's second great science-fiction flick (the first being the intensely moody Alien). Not only are the visuals great to look at, but the brilliant, existential screenplay is what makes this movie so great. The author Philip K Dick wrote the novel in which the movie is based off of and I think he would have been proud, even though the movie is completely different story, but the themes are still there. With a line like "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." That line sends chills down my spine.… Expand
  62. SmileyJamm
    Sep 19, 2011
    5
    I heard great things about this movie and decided to DVR it. The movie's special effects are great but the movie all in all just didn't do it for me. The story was confusing to me and they kept switching from scene to scene. This movie's is just kind of based on opinion
  63. Delta_Assault
    Sep 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First things first. Right off the bat, one thing I never understood about Blade Runner was its title. Why is it called Blade Runner? Deckard is a future cop who goes around hunting robots. He doesn't run on any blades, at all. There's no blade running. He drives a flying car. The movie never touches on the topic of blades or of running on blades. I just, I don't understand why the film has this title. Does blade running have anything to do with anything? I can't see it.

    Holden, the first blade runner agent goes and tests Leon, and gets blown away by a hidden gun when the replicant reacts badly to a question. Now, wouldn't it have been a lot safer if Holden had searched the suspect for weapons before administering the test? That seems like it would've been a prudent move. Replicants are artificially intelligent robots, as far as I can tell. Yet, why are they so similar to humans? All movie long, I was wondering why they didn't seem different from humans at all. You just couldn't tell them apart, there was nothing to give away their robotic nature. That's the reason for the Vought-kampf test, after all. But why were they so human? When Roy Batty stabs himself at the end of the film, what looks like blood comes out. It looked just like the blood of a normal person. But shouldn't there be some differentiation between us? Why would we make robots that are exactly like humans? "More human than human" as Tyrell's corporation puts it? Data on Star Trek is a good example of an AI android that clearly appears robotic. He's got golden eyes, and yellow metallic skin. There's a clear sign of otherness. We know just by looking at him that he's an android. Ash from Alien is another example of an android from a Ridley Scott film. Ash on the outside appears human, however his blood is milky white. That's a rather big indicator of artificial design, I'd say. But we don't get that at all with the replicants. Other then showing feats of superhuman strength, they're just like humans. The Tyrell corporation makes them more human than human, as we've said. But why the hell would they do that? The government has outlawed all replicants on earth, hasn't it? Doesn't that indicate a rather large and serious fear of replicants? Outlawing all intelligent robots on earth seems to me like people are rather afraid of intelligent robots. But it's okay to let the corporation keep making these intelligent robots as human as humanly possible? Completely indistinguishable from people, other then a rather lengthy and laborious empathy test? Doesn't this seem incredibly strange to anyone else? Why not make them look like robots, like Data, so we don't have to worry so much? Then, if they are on Earth, they're easy to spot. Wouldn't be so risky for blade runners, plus you wouldn't need to worry about accidentally retiring a human being. Or program some sort of dye into their body that's easily detectable with a scan? Or have some sort of killswitch in them so you can shut them off when they go rogue, rather then waiting for their four year lifespan to end?

    There are a few different models of Nexus-6 robots, we're told. Roy Batty is a combat model, while Pris is a pleasure model, aka a robot prostitute. Now alright, that's fine and well. But the prologue says that "Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets." Now, why would you so painstakingly try to create replicants that were as human as possible, and as intelligent as possible, if they're just going to be used for slave labor? I can see why a pleasure model like Pris might need to look as human as possible, since nobody who's going to an off-world brothel would want to **** something that looks like a robot. That wouldn't be so sexy. Dealing with the uncanny valley would also be a pretty big turnoff, I'd imagine. So it makes sense that Pris would look as human as possible. But for others, like Roy Batty... it doesn't really hold up. Trying to make a robot look as human as possible seems like a tremendous waste of time and effort if you're just going to use him for combat or slave labor. Does slave labor really require exceptional intelligence or perfect human likeness? I think not.

    And frankly, the world we're shown doesn't even seem capable of creating robots that are perfect facsimiles of human beings. Such a feat would require a highly advanced technological society, wouldn't it? And yet, I mean... this is a world where we see huge smokestacks in industrial pits belching flames. Maybe it's just me, but that looks rather primitive and unsophisticated. There are dilapidated buildings with gothic designs and J.F. Sebastian's home is filled with creepy dolls and androids that seem like they came right out of an 18th century opera. The flying car that Deckard rides in looks rather messy and junky, with wires running everywhere.    … Expand
  64. Sevvy88
    Jun 7, 2013
    9
    Love this movie. A true sci-fi picture. Explores a lot of great philosophical issues and makes cool social commentary without feeling overbearing. Harrison Ford is great in it as is Rutger Hauer (the star of the show imo). It's just a great film. If you haven't seen it, regardless of your age, do so. It has brilliant set design and art direction. It's a visual feast as well as a disturbing picture into the human condition and morality.… Expand
  65. lasttimeisaw
    Mar 21, 2012
    9
    I have finished this epochal cult filmâ
  66. A_Northerner
    Aug 24, 2012
    8
    Ridley Scott's 1982 film Blade Runner is an adaptation of Hollywood favourite Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Set in a futuristic 2019 Los Angeles, the humans remaining on Earth populate a poisoned planet. Scott and his special effects team created a sprawling, multi-cultural, dark and dystopian metropolis dense with towering skyscrapers in between which flying police cars patrol. The setting of the film is visionary and Dick and Scott deserve all the praise they have received for it.

    The soundtrack is provided by Vangelis (Chariots of Fire) and provides the perfect backdrop to the gloomy futuristic landscape Scott creates.

    Technology has allowed the fictional Tyrell Corporation to develop organic androids, known as replicants, for use as slaves in off-world colonies. Outlawed on Earth, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a retired replicant hunter (known as a blade runner) tasked with tracking and 'retiring' a group of rogue replicants who have returned to Earth. The replicants are lead by Rutger Hauer's intelligent and villainous Roy Barry, with the intent of forcing Tyrell to modify the replicants and extended their lifespan. Ford plays the burnt out, gritty drunkard Deckard with the grumpiness of Han Solo but thankfully with none of the sarcasm or cheesy lines. Hauer is excellent as he becomes scarily unhinged and seemingly indestructible towards the film's climax. Sean Young plays an experimental female replicant, designed with memories with the belief that she is actually human, with whom Deckard falls for.

    I must be honest that with this being the first time I have watched the film, I completely missed the plot suggestions that Deckard himself may be a replicant so maybe I need to re-watch the film from this point of view.    … Expand
  67. Everlong
    May 18, 2012
    8
    Gritty, dark, beautiful, scary, alien. Five words that I can use to sum up what Blade Runner represents to me. A brilliant film that ever science fiction fan should make a point of seeing.
  68. Dezuuu
    Apr 4, 2012
    10
    The very definition of cyberpunk. The best soundtrack to a movie ever, by the one and only Vangelis. Revolutionary from a technical standpoint. A great story. A true cult classic.
  69. Scorpion
    May 10, 2013
    9
    The subtle direction of Ridley Scott, this film transforms into a work of art without equal, telling the story of a mercenary who fell in love with his pod trabalho.Ele seem cold, harsh and violent as the film but her final packaged by a music Vangelis phenomenal, makes it all worthwhile resulting in one of the most satisfactory films of Ridley Scott.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88 out of 100

Universal acclaim - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 10
  3. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Rita Kempley
    100
    Grand enough in scale to carry its many Biblical and mythological references, Blade Runner never feels heavy or pretentious -- only more and more engrossing with each viewing. It helps, too, that it works as pure entertainment.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    100
    The grafting of 40s hard-boiled detective story with SF thriller creates some dysfunctional overlaps, and the movie loses some force whenever violence takes over, yet this remains a truly extraordinary, densely imagined version of both the future and the present, with a look and taste all its own.
    Read full review
  3. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: David Sterritt
    38
    As before, the movie is more impressive for its finely detailed vision of Los Angeles as a futuristic slum than for its story, acting, or message. It's all downhill after the first few eye-dazzling minutes. [2 Oct 1992]
See all critic reviews »